<p>"I just like the fact that the mating game & all the energy that takes up is not a concern during the school day."</p>
<p>We try to emphasize to our daughters that the mating game isn't for high school and that dating/boyfriends are for college (when they are more apt to make mature decisions). Plus, I tell them that the best kind of man to attract is comfortable with smart, confident girls.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Also, my kids' experience was definitely that the boys had generally caught up with the girls by the end of 8th grade.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I have not seen this with my son or with the majority of my son's and D's friends. DS is beginning to show some catch up now at 16, but he is relatively far behind, particularly in math. (There's more to the story - the math teaching can be spotty at his school, some of the teachers in the accelerated math classes are good, but not all, same for the lower math groups, unfortunately this is the first year that he has landed the "good" teacher in math.) He truly can't catch up, it is too late. This accounts for at least some of the dichotomy in the upper 10% of the class - 2:1 ratio girls to boys at the top of the class. In my D's class, boys dominated slightly in science, were 1:1 in math, and were blown away by the girls in everything else.</p>
<p>YMMV, but I think there is something to this, whether it is more maturity or needing active forms of learning, or if boys hae maturity issues that are better addressed through active forms of learning?? I'm not interested in tearing down girls, I'm more interested in teaching all kids in the most productive fashion. you would think with al lthe research we could figure this out.</p>
<p>Ha, ha, Cangel. I agree. We went to gathering Thanksgiving weekend with friends that have daughters who are my nearly 18 year old son's age. They too are looking at colleges. I was blown away over the maturity difference. Granted, my son is young for his age, but he is a bit older than most seniors in highschools and that one year differential does compensate when he is with other senior boys. But with the girls, forget it. </p>
<p>And he is not the only one. I took him and some old friends from elementary school (they all went to different highschools) out for dinner one night. They were a good looking group of boys and caught the eyes of many young ladies as this is a favorite highschool weekend hangout. They did not even look up at the girls. BUt funnier yet was the excerpt I hear from their conversation: they were discussing attributes of various Pokemon characters. </p>
<p>I think my son writes well, in term of grammar, clarity, form, vocabulary, and his writing sample for the SAT was graded pretty high. But the difference in sophistication of ideas showed up so clearly when I was looking at some essays displayed on some idea. No names given, but I could pick out the males and females. I checked and was dead on. It scared me how the maturity was so clear. </p>
<p>The girls seem to do better in bio as far as sciences go, about equal in chem with a slight nod to the boys. When it comes to physics, the boys definitely rule. The same with the advanced math, though the earlier stuff the girls seem to do better. Also the girls seem to make less careless, sloppy type mistakes but have a more difficult time with actually understanding how to solve the more difficult problems. My son seems to have an easy time in math, even advanced calc, but gets killed in not writing down steps, and carelessness usually a result of sloppiness.</p>
<p>But I also wonder (particularly reading your post cangel) whether there is something going on at your school. In our high school the top two places were boys, number three or four in the class was a girl (headed for Caltech). The top 25 kids seemed fairly evenly split. Girls got a few more of the humanities prizes, boys sweeped Latin and had a slight majority of science prizes. For what it's worth I think our elementary did some good things like teach chess in the schools which I think deemphasized some of those sex roles. I think a school where girls are achieving at much greater rates should be worried about what they are doing wrong.</p>
<p>That said, I went to a girl's high school (not my idea!) and it was very good for me. I think it was much easier for us to be nerdy and intellectual and it spawned close friendships which I still value to this day. Oh and while many girls see kids after school - I knew no one well enough from my jr. high days and didn't have a church or other coed EC to meet boys. I went on my first date summer after senior year. I didn't seem to have it any easier or harder as a freshman than my female friends with more high school experience however.</p>
<p>There are obviously many ways to skin a cat. It seems from this thread that both experiences, coed and single sex environments, produce successful people. </p>
<p>Some points not considered as yet. My girl, like garland's, does not do well with the girly-girly environment, though being at Barnard, which she chose for its feminism, is helping. She would not have pushed herself into AP calc if all the kids in the class were brainiac girls; having guys around taking it gave her the shoove she needed to challenge herself. Probably the same is true for the AP science classes she took. She did excell in science at Barnard, though she is not interested in it in the least. Having done science with boys put her a leg up in many of the labs. She was certainly shocked by this turn of events. So boys were her motivator. They were more buddies than love objects; at 16 she acquired a 19 year old boyfriend and the guys were intimidated by that.</p>
<p>For son: Girls treasured him for his openness and general sweetness. I think he really enjoyed that. The senior class raffled off "bachelor baskets", which was a reversal of the usual gendered raffles. He put god awful food in it, but he was billed as "the softie" and his basket made money for some good cause, and he ate it with the girl who had bought him. Good fun for them. Academically, I don't think it mattered at all; his world was so boy dominated that the girls did not make impact. I must say, the girls in his grade just happened to be very conventional. The two counterculture girls were revered and strongly befriended.</p>
<p>Yes, dressing up and encouraging a more business-like atmosphere must be conducive to learning, so maybe we want to look at how much the private school atmosphere plays a part here. S's Latin teacher could never get his bearings in the public school S attended after teaching at a private school.</p>
<p>I think it's very important for schools to have male teachers who understand boys. I think girls also benefit from a more "hands on" educational style.</p>
<p>Here's a little anecdote about girls/boys learning styles. Both D and S had same English teacher; one AP twelfth, one honors 10th. Both classes were required to put together a writer portfolio. Students needed to switch portfolios and comment on each other's work at length.</p>
<p>D and her girl friends conscientiously completed this assignment.</p>
<p>S and his friends only read their own and then "creatively" wrote from the point of view of their friend and had the friend sign the comments. This saved them the trouble of reading another's portfolio. However, they were required to be more creative and project themselves into another's thought world.</p>
<p>I still can't decide which was the greater learning experience. Of course, it drove D crazy. The boys did cheat, but they "got away with it." I think the male teacher would have been okay with it if he found out, but we'll never know.</p>
<p>At Williams in his freshman entry S has rubbed elbows with young men from all species of private school. According to him the public school kids and the private school kids were indistinguisable in academic and social success, and this includes those from single-sex institutions as well. I'll take his word for this; his AP science teachers did a good job of teaching observation. He was very proud that at mid-term time that his entry was one of the few that did not receive any academic warnings -- public and private school kids present in the ranks.</p>
<p>cpt: S won the English award as the strongest writer in the grade and the deepest interpreter of literature. Teacher told me that he single handedly raised the level of discourse to college level. He understands calc perfectly but panics. His grades were good; AP exam fine, but English was stronger.</p>
<p>I think the main thing is that familieis are happier with choices
My older daughter attended a coed school- same kids basically since 6th grade,
Graduating class of 18- which is probably why Reed @ 1200 wasn't too small</p>
<p>Younger D, attending a high school of 1650, and one of the reasons ( this school) was individuality is valued more than brandname awareness or skill with cosmetics. At least while she is very fashion concious ( subscription to Vogue), it is entertainment not oxygen</p>
<p>both coed schools- but while I have known kids attending single sex schools to be inordinately concerned with opposite sec, Ive also known the reverse.</p>
<p>Cangel, this wasn't from an article, it was from a post by a teacher on a board not unlike this one, albeit focused on a very different subject (writing) and password protected. It's my favorite board in many ways, one never knows what turns the conversations will take. Virtually everyone posts under their True Names and even people who haven't been able to stand each other for 20 years manage to get along. The teacher had no input on reintegration besides when it should take place. I may PM the writer a link to this thread so that he may comment if he chooses.</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>Data points: D went to co-ed public high school, attending single-sex private college. Did well at both academically. But in high school there were things like another girl saying, "Can't you try to fit in?" by which she meant not participate so much in class, defer to the guys. (Stereotype: this was from a cheerleader dating a football player).</p>
<p>D was one of the top students in BC Calc, went on to become a math major, and had no problem competing with the guys per se. </p>
<p>I would have never bet that she would go to a womens college but meeting the then-current students and seeing how much energy and assertiveness there was really excited her. Fwiw, while, as many people know to the point of groaning, she was a ballet dancer, she was in no way a sheltered girly-girl.</p>
<p>I'm an agnostic on all of this single-sex stuff. Or at least see indicators in conflict. My own gut says that while single-sex might be good for boys in high school, I'm unclear as to whether it helps or hinders girls. </p>
<p>Otoh, I was skeptical of womens colleges and have become a convert. The women I've met are comfortable in their own skins and there's not a lot of fussing about clothes, make-up etc. or other guy-oriented behavior.</p>
<p>Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if there was no one approach that worked well for everyone, regardless of sex.</p>
<p>TheDad: Haha. D is not mathy, but she is very assertive. She is also a dancer. Women's colleges attract them; good dance departments and dance schools are usually so gendered. She chose Barnard, but she is very into her clothes, not make-up and fussing, but she wanted to be at a school where she could dress up and not be weird. Shopping is a major activity, at least window shopping is, in NYC. </p>
<p>She is dressing for herself and her friends. I've actually never dated anyone who really cared about my clothes and I doubt she has either. But the women have fun dressing for each other.</p>
<p>That said, most days are certainly jeans, but there are plenty of opportunities to dress.</p>
<p>Sorry for the hijack, but I can't imagine a world that D lived in that wouldn't include interest in clothes, even if panda bears were her only comrades.</p>
<p>MM, a major difference between Barnard and Smith might be that more of the latter go to class wearing pajama bottoms. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry for the hijack, but I can't imagine a world that D lived in that wouldn't include interest in clothes, even if panda bears were her only comrades.
[/quote]
Wouldn't that constitute...(wait for it)...pandering?</p>
<p>TheDad: LOL. Sooo funny.</p>
<p>Yeah, not too many pajama bottoms when one might walk on or across Broadway at any moment.</p>
<p>Yesterday D went to Guggenheim for American Studies class. Not in pajama bottoms!</p>
<p>PS I love Smith. NOT competing, just reporting on the vagaries of young women at women's colleges.</p>
<p>No one who knew D could believe she would consider a woman's college, let alone be desperate to attend one. But so it was.</p>
<p>About your question I will offter my own experience. Although I am not as gifted as your D in math, I am no slouch either.</p>
<p>Eons ago I was in the accelerated math program -- 4 girls, 20 boys at our big suburban hs. They made sure we were very uncomfortable. Scored only perfect score on chem regents year I took it and I have a PhD in English. Sigh. I love what I do, but I dream of that all women engineering major at Smith. Good idea, IMO.</p>
<p>Barnard has urban studies and architecture majors for Columbia College as well as acting and dance.</p>
<p>The title of this thread caught my eye. Yesterday my D found this note in her desk at school:</p>
<p>"Song by your secret admirer</p>
<p>Beautiful (Name)</p>
<p>So many times I have had no second chance the warrior in me wont break so I stay in shadows sad and alone. But when I met you I lost all misery.
oh beautiful (Name) a cloudy day turn in to sunshine. I love your great laugh
your beautiful (Name). I would go through fire for just save you. So I make sure that you don't know because you will probably turn away."</p>
<p>My D is an 8yo 3rd grader. It was pretty easy to figure out who the "secret admirer" is. (Male, obviously an ESL student, the one who always asks if he can sharpen her pencil for her. . .) And she doesn't admire him back--she thinks boys are "stinky." Her 17 yo sister is jealous--no one ever sent HER love notes. . .</p>
<p>While I think this is very sweet--and I do think my 8 yo D is beautiful, has a sunny personality and a great laugh--It makes me a bit uncomfortable to think that some 8/9yo boy has fixed his "romantic" attentions on her.
Know of any convent schools? ;)</p>
<p>Clearly individual boys and girls will not fit into the generalities. But as a rule, the girls do not tend to do as well in the math type subjects, and the boys tend to dislike writing. Boys tend to mature more slowly than girls. Boys tend to be more physical. Boys tend to have more learning disabilities and issues.</p>
<p>Again, all generalities. There are girls who excell in math and go into engineering. Some boys love to write (my youngest falls into this category) and dislike sports and rough housing. When they hit adulthood, some of these differences iron out. </p>
<p>However, young men are a group of high risk. They have more car accidents, get thrown into jail more, drop out of school more, die more. They are outnumbered by the girls at colleges these days. These are all realities, not opinions. Perhaps it is because they do mature more slowly, and those testosterone surges are not always matched with gray cell growth. I don't know whether a single sex environment cuts down on their risks or increases them (I think about gangs--they are all boy). It's hard to say, because the few single sex schools around are private, usually Catholic. So they do not represent the general population. There a handful of inner city public schools that have and are considering going single sex, but not enough and not long enough to come to a definite conclusion that having boys in a single sex school is overall beneficial. The same with girls. It is clear that there are kids who benefit, and those that are happier and do well in a coed environment. My guess is there are many that would do the same in either, or would have pros and cons that would balance each other out.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, </p>
<p>My sister-in-law, who is a high school principal says, "every adult male is a miracle." I'm raising a 13 yo boy, and I get it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Learning is so much more involved because guys seem to be so much more eccentric when working with other guys. For instance, I doubt that in a co-ed group I would ever be in a rather vocal argument about integrals. Partially because it would seem rather "dorky" in front of girls, but also because girls, in my experience, don't like to argue "serious" topics with guys (at this age, anyways).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow. Handyandy's post is a true testament to the harmful side effects of single-sex education. For him to think that way about teen girls is just totally "19th century". Thank god I had a co-ed education. I never noticed any gender lines interfering with class through all of high school. Gender was basically a non-issue 99% of the time. I am a science/math oriented girl and the majority of my science/math electives were 75% male or higher. In some of my courses, I was the only girl or one of two girls in a class of boys. The thought that "oh, I'm a girl, and they're boys, we're too different!' has never crossed my mind. Who cares? I was and am always as active as the boys in predominantly male classes, as are the other handful of girls who take those courses. If anything, we're more vocal in class, and get better grades than the average guy. I honestly think the sex segregation idea is archaic and somewhat misogynist. Andy's understanding of girls is really rather limited and shows what he missed by not going to school with any girls. I'm offended that handyandy doesn't think girls can "argue about integrals" because we're.. what, too preoccupied with not looking dorky? Too worried about not smudging our lipstick or something? We can't think too hard and have 'serious discussions' because our puny female brains might explode? It's like the 1900's never happened!</p>
<p>I hate to think of how guys who attend single-sex schools will view and interact with girls in college and beyond.</p>
<p>By the way, I don't see anything wrong with a little hallway flirting and dating. Just because the purpose of school is to educate doesn't mean we can't get some inter-sex socializing done in our down-time, between classes, during lunch, before/after school, etc. Nobody can be 100% productive for 7 or 8 straight hours, anyway. I consider myself a pretty focused person, and I need a breather and a distraction after 90 minutes of lecture.</p>
<p>God forbid we all enter college clueless about how to approach someone of the opposite sex or know nothing about intimate relationships. Sure, some kids take it overboard, but frankly, the only people I know who really let their love lives dominate everything else also let a lot of other things dominate academics: clothes, makeup, shopping, TV, whatever. Boys are just another bullet on the list, and academics is pretty much at the very bottom. And if you put those girls in an all -girls school, they're just going to go for the boys in the all boys schools. What do you think goes on in catholic girls schools?? Lol.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hate to think of how guys who attend single-sex schools will view and interact with girls in college and beyond.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
God forbid we all enter college clueless about how to approach someone of the opposite sex or know nothing about intimate relationships.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The college kids that I know (and I know quite a few) who attended an all-boy or all-girl high school do not have any more difficulty with relationships than those who attended coed schools. The above comments are based on stereotypes. </p>
<p>What makes you think that the boys at a coed school are somehow less sexist than boys at an all-male school?</p>
<p>I think anecdotal evidence on this thread already "prooves" that single sex and coed schools can both be successful.</p>
<p>About young men at risk. Yes, they are, but I have taught gender studies for 27 years and I really believe, sad to say, that this is biological collateral damage rather than the result of our school system.</p>
<p>In all tested cultures young men 15 - 30 take more risks than other groups. I think this is how all physically dangerous accomplishments are made. How many women would be fighter pilots with an 80% attrition rate in WWII? As the mother of an adored son, I am not condoning, supporting or emotionally accepting this, just reporting it.</p>
<p>And when one male can impregnant many females it's understandable that a sense of invulnerability would be advantageous for our species but the symmetrical sense in young females would not be. Since so much time and care is needed to gestate, raise and wean a child, young woman could not (cannot) be profligate with themselves if our species was to have survived.</p>
<p>ONOH: Those young men at risk grow up to run the world. Those highly successful young females in most cases do not.</p>
<p>If we can keep the boys alive until 30 they do alright. Cultural images that celebrate war and macho behavior (alcohol, motor cycles, gangs, drag racing, etc.) would be my place to start, not the school system.</p>
<p>Maybe single sex private schools are an aid to young men, I don't know. However, that solution is not going to touch the majority of young men at risk. Money just doesn't exist. Segregating classrooms without money, trained personnel, etc etc may even exacerbate the problem for many at risk youth because young men do posture and compete for each other's approval too. </p>
<p>My son was never ashamed to carry his violin case in front of girls. Boys? That was a different story. And he turned down the part of the prince in the Nutcracker even though he loves to perform with the words, "I'd rather die than be part of any dance." I really think he meant it, and I don't think he was thinking of girls when he said it. He was most certainly thinking of his image among young men.</p>
<p>I said, "You are just saying that to protect your image among your friends."</p>
<p>Him: "Yeah, so what's your point?"</p>
<p>Mathmom, there are many things that could be improved at the school, no doubt, but I'm not sure that it is tremendously different than most American schools - it is private, but has more in common with a middle class predominantly white public school than with Andover. If you look at the upper 10%, the kids who could excel anywhere, girls predominate. Last year they had a male valedictorian, and I think there might be one this spring - those would be the first 2 guys in over 5 years.
What bothers me though, is the upper one-half is mostly girls. I know exactly where the principal is coming from who was quoted as saying "Every adult male is a miracle" - I really worry that we are losing whole generations of young men because it will require more and more education to compete in the future, and they will be left further behind - look at the women to men ratios in colleges, isn't it more than 60:40? There aren't enough good paying, non-college requiring jobs to absorb all those boys.</p>
<p>
I really agree with both of these comments. I've primarily been a SAHM, with two sons. Would I have stayed home if I had daughters? I don't know. But I do know that I felt it was important for me to know what they were up to most of the time. </p>
<p>Someone recently asked me how I'd handle an upcoming professional situation. After giving the "right" answer, I jokingly added that I've gotten two sons through adolescence. Not much scares me anymore! :eek:</p>
<p>
[quote]
..."all boy" in the most odious ways...
[/quote]
This statement, and the h.s. principal's succinctly sum up why all boy schools work for lots of boys. I have one of those little boys & I'm trying to work on the odious part! I was at a hockey game with him this weekend & he greeted a friend with the following: "Hey Bob, thanks for forgetting to brush your teeth this morning...are you trying to kill me?" An 11 year old girl would be horrified at this exchange with a friend. But Bob laughed heartily & traded an equally "witty" retort. This teasing & repartee are very important to boys' development & socialization. It's common for male teachers at all-boy schools to lead the way in this sarcastic communication style, almost as a substitute for physical one-upmanship.</p>
<p>Ambr3: HandyAndy was not putting down girls at all. At least I didn't see it that way. He was speaking of his OWN comfort level in discussing integers in a lively, even passionate, way. Like mythmom's son keeping his violin hidden around the guys, HandyAndy may feel the geek label isn't something he wants the girls to stick him with. Single sex schools are very freeing for kids of both genders.</p>
<p>Captain mentioned gangs, and that caught my eye. I think in a very basic way, an all-boy school takes much of the boy need to form groups & assign a strict hierarchy, complete with alpha male. But the gang leader is usually a brilliant, no-nonsense Jesuit priest who won't take any crap. The gang instincts are thus controlled, or at least funneled into productive actions, like academic, athletic & artistic competition.</p>